So where does the part where Zimmerman says, "He's coming towards me to check me out." (or something close to that) fit into all the theoretical time-lines? Was Zimmerman lying to the dispatcher?
pres man wrote: So where does the part where Zimmerman says, "He's coming towards me to check me out." (or something close to that) fit into all the theoretical time-lines? Was Zimmerman lying to the dispatcher? Zimmerman's statement to the police who arrived at the scene.
I'm not implying they want money, just saying that there is a legal action they can pursue right now against the closed community. This also brings them some justice by punishing the people that decided Zimmerman was a proper community watch member, when usually (if not always) members of community watch are not allowed to be armed, because then they have to be trained properly like private security basically.
What makes you be sure they don't want money. Are you member of the Martin family? Probably NOT. Again just more "I think" type of answers, and you have no facts to back up your statement since no one can be sure they won't pursuit getting money from the gated community.
I do understand your point of view, but most of the time "justice" seeking people also pursue monetary compensation, this would also help as a precedent for other gated communities to be more careful as to who is in their watch amongst other things.
Deiros wrote: I would just like to add that listening to some kind of music really does not help, this includes banda music that praises druglord or rap music that praises violence and how to treat women poorly. I have noticed how this affects many children and teenagers and needs to change to also help change hispanic and african-american culture that are affected by this stereotyping thinking they are like the guys on the songs. Blah blah blah.
Darkwing Duck wrote: thejeff wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Asphere wrote: Once Trayvon rounded the corner and was heading down the path he probably stopped or slowed down thinking that Zimmerman wouldn't follow him because the path is inaccessible by truck. Zimmerman thinking that Trayvon was probably long gone stopped running and rounded the corner normally and realized Trayvon was still on the pathway just around the corner waiting for Zimmerman to pass by on the road around the corner so he could keep on walking to where he was going. Do you believe that Zimmerman stopped running and told the 911 dispatcher, "okay" (both indicators that he didn't intend to keep following Martin), then got out in the rain to go in the direction of Martin? What do you mean by "got out in the rain"? He was not in his car at the end of the 911 call. There is no reason to believe he returned to his car between the call and the shooting. In fact, given the time constraints, it's very unlikely.
He stopped running partly because, as he said, he'd lost sight of Martin. Given his comments and behavior, is it out of the question that if he'd caught sight of Martin again, he would have gone after him? If he got out of the car, then he got out in the rain - right? I don't even know what you're thinking here.
He got out of the car during the 911 call. Before he started breathing heavily (running) and before the dispatcher asked if he was following Martin. That was into the rain.
Why are you asking if he got out into the rain, after he stopped running, when there's no evidence he made it back to his car?
Edit: Or am I mistaken? I can't listen to the audio right now. Is there evidence on the 911 tape that he actually got back in his car? Door closing or something like that?
If he did, it looks very bad for him, since he obviously got out again and over to the site where the body was found, which is hard to reconcile with claims that Martin accosted him.
pres man wrote: So where does the part where Zimmerman says, "He's coming towards me to check me out." (or something close to that) fit into all the theoretical time-lines? Was Zimmerman lying to the dispatcher? That was around 1:20 in the 911 call. While Zimmerman was still in his car.
Martin would have naturally walked by the car on his route home.
Well before the final confrontation.
DD is back with the same allegations, stating them as facts. He never did answer that question about whether or not a female should have to wait to be pinned before she can attack.
Well actually it was not a question since he did say it. We were just trying to get him to verify that is what he meant.
zagnabbit wrote: @Shifty
I see your point. Unfortunately I doubt that banning guns or restricting access would have alleviated this situation. Zimmerman could just as easily carried an illegal handgun, the event would have gone down just like it did, save for the added permutation of him "disarming the assailant" and shooting the youth with the gun. This happens all the rime in America.
Zimmerman is an overzealous Community Watch Captain. Which is very similar to an overzealous Security Guard. There is a ridiculous Seth Rogen film, Observe and Report, that pretty well lays out the personality type that Im getting at here. I have friends who thought that movie was hysterical, others thought it was horrible. Me I found it uncomfortably close to the truth.
I live in an independant suburb of a small city. We have a small police force. It has several experienced full timers and then some part timers that are young and with less experience. The younger ones work part time until they get hired by the County Sherrif's office or the City Police. Unfortunately there are a couple who can't seem to get hired by those two organizations, because they can't pass the psyche qualifications. These guys are still working in law enforcement, armed, but in a place where they are far less likely to get into mischief.
About 10 years ago I watched a private "Rent a Cop", pull a gun on a mouthy teenager.
I closed my bar on a Wednesday night, my security guard ( a deputy sherrif on injury leave) and my bartender joined me for breakfast at our local Waffle House, a 24 hour eatery. When we arrived the 3 contract security personnell were escorting a young black guy out of the restaurant followed by two late teen girls. The 3 kids were leaving, but the kid was being quite caustic in his mockery of the contract security personell. One of the Rent a Cops just lost his cool and pulled his gun, a Desert Eagle (huge hand gun) and pointed it at the kid. The kid was standing between the gun and the two young girls and my group of coworkers....
I love stories like this. These are exactly the kind of wannabee "heroes" that ruin it for everyone else. I have quite a few friends that "were gonna be's" and compensate by owning A LOT of firearms and knives. They typically work for DHS at the airport checking ID's. I think in the wake of two wars, guys like this feel even more insecure with the media's focus on vets. This will happen again, and again.
Map of the shooting
That doesn't look good for Zimmerman. After following Martin that far on foot (and it looks like he would have had to) Zimmerman would definitely qualify as an attacker from the standpoint of a reasonable person, and be subject to a legal, violent response.
thejeff wrote: pres man wrote: So where does the part where Zimmerman says, "He's coming towards me to check me out." (or something close to that) fit into all the theoretical time-lines? Was Zimmerman lying to the dispatcher? That was around 1:20 in the 911 call. While Zimmerman was still in his car.
Martin would have naturally walked by the car on his route home.
Well before the final confrontation. How could his car (with him in it) have been in front of Martin if he was following Martin?
pres man wrote: thejeff wrote: pres man wrote: So where does the part where Zimmerman says, "He's coming towards me to check me out." (or something close to that) fit into all the theoretical time-lines? Was Zimmerman lying to the dispatcher? That was around 1:20 in the 911 call. While Zimmerman was still in his car.
Martin would have naturally walked by the car on his route home.
Well before the final confrontation. How could his car (with him in it) have been in front of Martin if he was following Martin? I'm not entirely sure how that played out. It's possible he didn't follow Martin in the car at all. Or he did but that was just after.
Possibility 1: Zimmerman is sitting in car, where it ended up, near the corner.
Martin enters gated community, walks down street towards Z.
Z. calls 911.
M. passes Z., checking him out.
M. continues off the road on the sidewalk between rows of houses.
Z. gets out of car chases him
Possibility 2: Zimmerman is sitting in car, near the clubhouse by the entrance.
Martin enters gated community, walks down street towards Z.
Z. calls 911.
M. passes Z., checking him out.
M continues on towards corner.
Z drives after him to the corner.
M. continues off the road on the sidewalk between rows of houses.
Z. gets out of car chases him.
Regardless, on the 911 tape, the "he's coming to check me out" comment comes well before Z gets out of the car and runs.
thejeff wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: thejeff wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Asphere wrote: Once Trayvon rounded the corner and was heading down the path he probably stopped or slowed down thinking that Zimmerman wouldn't follow him because the path is inaccessible by truck. Zimmerman thinking that Trayvon was probably long gone stopped running and rounded the corner normally and realized Trayvon was still on the pathway just around the corner waiting for Zimmerman to pass by on the road around the corner so he could keep on walking to where he was going. Do you believe that Zimmerman stopped running and told the 911 dispatcher, "okay" (both indicators that he didn't intend to keep following Martin), then got out in the rain to go in the direction of Martin? What do you mean by "got out in the rain"? He was not in his car at the end of the 911 call. There is no reason to believe he returned to his car between the call and the shooting. In fact, given the time constraints, it's very unlikely.
He stopped running partly because, as he said, he'd lost sight of Martin. Given his comments and behavior, is it out of the question that if he'd caught sight of Martin again, he would have gone after him? If he got out of the car, then he got out in the rain - right? I don't even know what you're thinking here.
He got out of the car during the 911 call. Before he started breathing heavily (running) and before the dispatcher asked if he was following Martin. That was into the rain.
Why are you asking if he got out into the rain, after he stopped running, when there's no evidence he made it back to his car?
Edit: Or am I mistaken? I can't listen to the audio right now. Is there evidence on the 911 tape that he actually got back in his car? Door closing or something like that?
If he did, it looks very bad for him, since he obviously got out again and over to the site where the body was found, which is hard to reconcile with claims that Martin accosted him. It all has to do with when Martin called DeeDee.
1.) I assume that Zimmerman called 911 shortly after he alerted on Martin.
I hear no sounds of Zimmerman opening and closing his car door while he's on his 911 call. So, I assume that he was already outside of his car when he called 911 (I know he was outside of his car due to his heavy breathing while following Martin, the only question is when he got out of his car). Zimmerman was out of his car when Martin started running.
2.) Martin started running while Zimmerman was on his 911 call (which we know from the recording of the 911 call).
I assume that Martin didn't call DeeDee while he was running.
So, after Martin stopped running, he called DeeDee. DeeDee says that Martin told her he was being followed by someone in a car. So, Zimmerman got back in his car.
3.) Zimmerman was confronted face-to-face with Martin. This is consistent with the injury on the back of Zimmerman's head as well as testimony by the witnesses. So, Zimmerman was, once again, outside of his car.
Curiosely, Zimmerman says on his 911 call that Martin ran. DeeDee says that Martin refused to run and was just going to walk fast.
No. There isn't time for all that.
The timeline is much faster.
Quote: ABC News reported March 29 that it had obtained phone records showing that DeeDee called Trayvon at 7:12 p.m. on the day he was killed, five minutes before police arrived, and remained on the line until moments before he was shot. Z's 911 call started at 7:11 and lasted just over 4 minutes.
So D called M around the 1 minute mark. That conversation lasted until 7:15 or 7:16, just before the first calls to 911 reporting screams and recording the shot. The police arrived at 7:17.
Z could not have returned to the car, driven after Z again, got out chased him again and then gotten in a fight.
I don't know why you couldn't hear the car door. There's a lot of noise in the version I heard. Somethings that could have been a door. You also can't hear rain or footsteps when he's running, just his breathing.
Maybe he wasn't in the car at all? Doesn't fit with his statement though. But then a lot of things don't.
I can't find anything saying that M. told her he was being followed by someone in a car. Just that he was followed. Do you have a good reference? I'd assumed he was followed in a car, but I now can't find anything specifically stating that.
M. walked past him, Z followed, both ran, Z stopped running.
Apparently lost sight of M.
It's not clear what Z did then, while still on the phone.
Walked back to the car? Stood still? Kept walking around looking for M? Looking for a street sign?
Within a minute after he hung up, but while M was still on the phone the confrontation occurred. Moments later, M was dead.
Since the body was around a corner and several hundred feet from the car, if he had returned to the car he left it very quickly.
Moro wrote: The question most people should be asking, in my opinion, is why this particular shooting and killing is being treated as so much worse than all of the others? In the time since the incident between Martin and Zimmerman, around 400* other murders have been committed with a firearm in this country. Of those, about 380* will have been intraracial crimes with more than 372* of those being instances of black on black violence. Of the ~20* interracial instances, more than 17* were statistically committed by an African-American perpetrator upon a white or Hispanic victim.
So why does this death receive so much attention while these others languish in relative obscurity?
(All of the above numbers were found via The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics and the latest compiled census statistics)
It's clear why. Be careful not to be called a bigot or racist for having common sense and guts to call it like it is. (I feel the flags coming)
Aretas wrote: Moro wrote: The question most people should be asking, in my opinion, is why this particular shooting and killing is being treated as so much worse than all of the others? In the time since the incident between Martin and Zimmerman, around 400* other murders have been committed with a firearm in this country. Of those, about 380* will have been intraracial crimes with more than 372* of those being instances of black on black violence. Of the ~20* interracial instances, more than 17* were statistically committed by an African-American perpetrator upon a white or Hispanic victim.
So why does this death receive so much attention while these others languish in relative obscurity?
(All of the above numbers were found via The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics and the latest compiled census statistics)
It's clear why. Be careful not to be called a bigot or racist for having common sense and guts to call it like it is. (I feel the flags coming) Why? Since it's so clear, can you spell it out for those not so brilliant as you.
Maybe you can respond to the list of possible reasons I posted earlier in response to this.
Sounds like you want to pick a fight. I said what I needed to say and that's it. I'm sure your a smart guy and can briliantly figure it out for yourself.
Calm down, aretas. Being snarky doesn't help your argument. And I would be interested in a calm and measured response to thejeffs timeline.
Actually, I was being kind of snarky myself.
But I am interested in a response to the suggestions I posted when Moro first asked his question:
thejeff wrote: Because this case involved an admitted shooter of a teenage boy who had committed no crime other than allegedly assaulting the armed man who was following him?
Because the shooter was not arrested, despite the recommendation of the homicide investigator? And in fact no further public progress was made on the case until after the case received media attention and in fact after the DOJ announced it's own investigation?
Because, despite having, among other evidence Martin's cellphone, the police did not contact Martin's parents for several days?
Because Martin's parents made a great effort to get the media involved? To push for an arrest and a trial?
Because the Internet works that way sometimes? One appeal goes viral and another doesn't?
Most murders are fairly simple affairs. Domestic disputes. Part of other crimes. Fights between criminals. Crimes of passion. Etc.
Some are immediately followed with an arrest. Some the killer is never identified. Some are clear cases of self defense.
This case is unique for many reasons.
Especially later posts of Moro's made me wonder if my initial reading of his post was accurate. He didn't respond to any of my suggestions about why this case got attention, but to step away from what others have claimed and what I assume Aretas meant: The liberal media loves a case that lets it claim white racists are to blame.
Freehold DM wrote: Calm down, aretas. Being snarky doesn't help your argument. And I would be interested in a calm and measured response to thejeffs timeline. I think there isn't any, hence the argumentum ad hominem being demonstrated.
pres man wrote: Again, there is no evidence from the video that his nose is broken, this is not the same as there is evidence it is not broken. This is not a good argument, pres man. If you claim to be a 4-armed superman ninja, it's up to you to prove it, not up to me to prove you're not. If Zimmerman's claim is that his nose was broken during a fight with Martin, it's up to Zimmerman to provide some iota of evidence that his claim is true. It's not up to the rest of the world to prove it isn't true.
Aretas wrote: I'm sure your a smart guy and can briliantly figure it out for yourself. "Your" =/= "you're."
thejeff wrote: No. There isn't time for all that.
The timeline is much faster.
Quote: ABC News reported March 29 that it had obtained phone records showing that DeeDee called Trayvon at 7:12 p.m. on the day he was killed, five minutes before police arrived, and remained on the line until moments before he was shot. Z's 911 call started at 7:11 and lasted just over 4 minutes.
So D called M around the 1 minute mark. That conversation lasted until 7:15 or 7:16, just before the first calls to 911 reporting screams and recording the shot. The police arrived at 7:17.
Z could not have returned to the car, driven after Z again, got out chased him again and then gotten in a fight.
I don't know why you couldn't hear the car door. There's a lot of noise in the version I heard. Somethings that could have been a door. You also can't hear rain or footsteps when he's running, just his breathing.
Maybe he wasn't in the car at all? Doesn't fit with his statement though. But then a lot of things don't.
I can't find anything saying that M. told her he was being followed by someone in a car. Just that he was followed. Do you have a good reference? I'd assumed he was followed in a car, but I now can't find anything specifically stating that.
M. walked past him, Z followed, both ran, Z stopped running.
Apparently lost sight of M.
It's not clear what Z did then, while still on the phone.
Walked back to the car? Stood still? Kept walking around looking for M? Looking for a street sign?
Within a minute after he hung up, but while M was still on the phone the confrontation occurred. Moments later, M was dead.
Since the body was around a corner and several hundred feet from the car, if he had returned to the car he left it very quickly.
Curious. While on the phone telling DeeDee that he's going to walk quickly away from Zimmerman, Martin is actually walking towards Zimmerman with his hand in his pants?
Darkwing Duck wrote: Curious. While on the phone telling DeeDee that he's going to walk quickly away from Zimmerman, Martin is actually walking towards Zimmerman with his hand in his pants? I'm pretty sure that's wrong. We don't have a recording or timestamped transcript of their conversation, so I can't line up what happened when.
I think that part of the conversation was after he claimed he was being followed again and right before the confrontation.
I'd love to see DeeDee's whole statement, not just random quotes from it.
thejeff wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Curious. While on the phone telling DeeDee that he's going to walk quickly away from Zimmerman, Martin is actually walking towards Zimmerman with his hand in his pants? I'm pretty sure that's wrong. We don't have a recording or timestamped transcript of their conversation, so I can't line up what happened when.
I think that part of the conversation was after he claimed he was being followed again and right before the confrontation.
I'd love to see DeeDee's whole statement, not just random quotes from it.
The ABC reporter claims to have a copy. He's supported by Crump. Personally, I think DeeDee is lying, but that's the thing about hard evidence - it can prove me wrong. On the other hand, given the claims that the record exists, if Crump can't produce it in court, a jury will ignore DeeDee.
Darkwing Duck wrote: thejeff wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Curious. While on the phone telling DeeDee that he's going to walk quickly away from Zimmerman, Martin is actually walking towards Zimmerman with his hand in his pants? I'm pretty sure that's wrong. We don't have a recording or timestamped transcript of their conversation, so I can't line up what happened when.
I think that part of the conversation was after he claimed he was being followed again and right before the confrontation.
I'd love to see DeeDee's whole statement, not just random quotes from it.
The ABC reporter claims to have a copy. He's supported by Crump. Personally, I think DeeDee is lying, but that's the thing about hard evidence - it can prove me wrong. On the other hand, given the claims that the record exists, if Crump can't produce it in court, a jury will ignore DeeDee. I'm not sure what you mean by "have a copy". AFAIK, there's no recording of the call. Why would there be? Apparently there is a deposition or affidavit or some other formal sworn statement she made. With their lawyer, because the police weren't interested.
If the jury ignores her testimony because there were online rumors of a record, that'll be a serious miscarriage of justice. If they don't find her testimony credible for other reasons, that's their right.
But we dance around again. You believe she's lying. Apparently for no other reason than that she contradicts your preferred narrative. You don't even examine what we know of what she said closely enough to understand it, as you show by your questions, but you're still willing to dismiss it. Why?
thejeff wrote:
You don't even examine what we know of what she said closely enough to understand it,
Really?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57400851-504083/trayvon-martin-victi m-of-fatal-shooting-told-girlfriend-i-think-this-dude-is-following-me-attor ney-says/
Based on the above link, I'm not the one failing to examine what we know of what she said.
Darkwing Duck wrote: thejeff wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: Curious. While on the phone telling DeeDee that he's going to walk quickly away from Zimmerman, Martin is actually walking towards Zimmerman with his hand in his pants? I'm pretty sure that's wrong. We don't have a recording or timestamped transcript of their conversation, so I can't line up what happened when.
I think that part of the conversation was after he claimed he was being followed again and right before the confrontation.
I'd love to see DeeDee's whole statement, not just random quotes from it.
The ABC reporter claims to have a copy. He's supported by Crump. Personally, I think DeeDee is lying, but that's the thing about hard evidence - it can prove me wrong. On the other hand, given the claims that the record exists, if Crump can't produce it in court, a jury will ignore DeeDee. This is what it comes down to. Is Dee Dee lying or is Zimmerman lying. Both have reasons to lie and I think the evidence is fuzzy enough to warrant a full investigation. The very fact that Zimmerman's word was taken at face value until the media frenzy hit is odd.
Darkwing Duck wrote: thejeff wrote: No. There isn't time for all that.
The timeline is much faster.
Quote: ABC News reported March 29 that it had obtained phone records showing that DeeDee called Trayvon at 7:12 p.m. on the day he was killed, five minutes before police arrived, and remained on the line until moments before he was shot. Z's 911 call started at 7:11 and lasted just over 4 minutes.
So D called M around the 1 minute mark. That conversation lasted until 7:15 or 7:16, just before the first calls to 911 reporting screams and recording the shot. The police arrived at 7:17.
Z could not have returned to the car, driven after Z again, got out chased him again and then gotten in a fight.
I don't know why you couldn't hear the car door. There's a lot of noise in the version I heard. Somethings that could have been a door. You also can't hear rain or footsteps when he's running, just his breathing.
Maybe he wasn't in the car at all? Doesn't fit with his statement though. But then a lot of things don't.
I can't find anything saying that M. told her he was being followed by someone in a car. Just that he was followed. Do you have a good reference? I'd assumed he was followed in a car, but I now can't find anything specifically stating that.
M. walked past him, Z followed, both ran, Z stopped running.
Apparently lost sight of M.
It's not clear what Z did then, while still on the phone.
Walked back to the car? Stood still? Kept walking around looking for M? Looking for a street sign?
Within a minute after he hung up, but while M was still on the phone the confrontation occurred. Moments later, M was dead.
Since the body was around a corner and several hundred feet from the car, if he had returned to the car he left it very quickly.
Curious. While on the phone telling DeeDee that he's going to walk quickly away from Zimmerman, Martin is actually walking towards Zimmerman with his hand in his pants? How can you possibly know this? Zimmerman says that Martin is coming over to check him out but from the map I think this is when Martin passed Zimmerman by his truck. It seems to me that this is when Zimmerman started following Martin on foot. Martin walked quickly away (maybe running like Z said but telling his GF that he was walking fast..young men want to sound like tough guys around girls) around the corner, then proceeded to head southward toward where he was staying. Zimmerman got off the phone with the 911 operator thinking Trayvon wasn't a resident and that Trayvon kept going straight instead of rounding the corner. Maybe he walked down to the south end of the building to get an address went around the south corner and saw Martin walking down the path and confronted him. Why couldn't that have happened?
Darkwing Duck wrote: thejeff wrote:
You don't even examine what we know of what she said closely enough to understand it,
Really?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57400851-504083/trayvon-martin-victi m-of-fatal-shooting-told-girlfriend-i-think-this-dude-is-following-me-attor ney-says/
Based on the above link, I'm not the one failing to examine what we know of what she said.
First, to the earlier point: Quote: An attorney for Trayvon Martin's family played what he said was a recorded affidavit from Martin's girlfriend So, not a recording of the call.
Second, the only quote from that call is: Quote: Martin's girlfriend says that Martin told her "I think this dude is following me," minutes before he was shot by Zimmerman. You will note that this doesn't reference the "won't run but will walk quickly away". This is "minutes before" the shooting.
I assume this is after he walked by and "checked out" Zimmerman, as described in the 911 call. Either when Zimmerman followed him a short ways in the car or when he admitted to the dispatcher that he was following him. It's still not clear to me if Z ever followed in the car or only on foot.
This story doesn't mention the won't run, but will walk fast part.
Here's the part I quoted before:
Quote: “He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on,” she said. “He said he lost the man. I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.”
“Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for.’ And the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’ Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn’t answer the phone.”
This obviously happens later, since he said he lost him.
Then, according to her, the man finds him again.
It's all from the same interview with the lawyer, but there's so much commentary online, I can't find the whole thing in one place.
But for some reason you think the only time she could have been telling him to run is at the very beginning when he's approaching Z to "check him out". I can't even imagine where you'd get that from.
Asphere wrote:
This is what it comes down to. Is Dee Dee lying or is Zimmerman lying. Both have reasons to lie and I think the evidence is fuzzy enough to warrant a full investigation. The very fact that Zimmerman's word was taken at face value until the media frenzy hit is odd.
I don't know what you mean by saying that Zimmerman's word was taken at face value before the media frenzy hit. He wasn't arrested, but that's standard legal procedure in Florida. He still has to face a grand jury next week.
And when the media frenzy did hit, they made a concerted effort to lie to make him look as bad as possible (everything from editing the 911 call to using a childhood photo of Martin).
The fact is that there has been so much disinformation from the media that if someone were to pop in here and say that they read that Zimmerman is part of the Hershey company's team of elite assassins targeting skittles eaters, at this point, I'd believe that they read it somewhere.
That's why instead of filling this thread up with frothing-at-the-mouth comments like, "You believe she's lying. Apparently for no other reason than that she contradicts your preferred narrative. ", I'd much prefer that this thread be used to share what each other has read so that we can work together to try to figure out what is true.
thejeff wrote: But for some reason you think the only time she could have been telling him to run is at the very beginning when he's approaching Z to "check him out". I can't even imagine where you'd get that from. I NEVER said that I think that's the only time she could have been telling him to run. It was the only sensible narrative that I could think of, but I NEVER said that it is the only sensible narrative that is possible. I asked for alternative narratives so that I could look at the situation from different perspectives.
Here's another link. This one where the reporter who originally 'broke' the news of DeeDee's alleged call claims to have a recording of that call.
https://twitter.com/#!/mattgutmanABC/status/185073162889859072
Given the wide divergence of views here, if there's some concentrated media attempt to spin the whole thing a certain way (as DD staunchly maintains), then all I can say is that they're doing an unbelievably lousy job of it. And if their efforts produce the same result as a lack of any such effort would presumably produce, then why worry about it?
Kirth Gersen wrote: Given the wide divergence of views here, if there's some concentrated media attempt to spin the whole thing a certain way (as DD staunchly maintains), then all I can say is that they're doing an unbelievably lousy job of it. Reporters suck.
Its why newspapers are going out of business. They claim its because of the Internet, but the fact is that if untrained people can compete with reporters even when news papers are offering bonuses like coupons, then that's just evidence that reporters suck - and, by suck, I mean 'are as skillful as a bunch of drug addled monkeys'.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Kirth Gersen wrote: Given the wide divergence of views here, if there's some concentrated media attempt to spin the whole thing a certain way (as DD staunchly maintains), then all I can say is that they're doing an unbelievably lousy job of it. Reporters suck. Evidently they suck at spinning things, agreed. I don't think that necessarily implies that they all suck at actually, you know, reporting. Or else you'd have never heard about the shooting to begin with, hien?
The "media" did not edit that call. One company did, and the unedited version was heard also. I am not saying editing the call was right, but it did nobody any favors. Some people think it helped Zimmerman.
Yeah that company is a part of the media, but with it written like that it makes it sound like all of the companies were in on it.
The younger photo of Martin was also a bad call, but that does not change the fact that the cops bungled the case.
DD such comments as, "You believe she's lying. Apparently for no other reason than that she contradicts your preferred narrative. ", are made because it seems you are clearly trying to support one side as opposed to trying to find out what really happened. I am not saying don't have an opinion.
I think Zimmerman is guilty of murder, not premeditated, but still guilty. I am also open to the possibility that Zimmerman might just be a victim of police incompetence, and it would not be fair to make him a scapegoat because the police botched an investigation.
Now some will try to say the police could not arrest him legally, but in that case Zimmerman is then being tried(in the public eye) for a badly thought out law.
As for Matt Gutman when he releases the recording or it shows up in court I will give it some credence. For now he is just trying to get some attention. I see no way that he alone could get that recording.
Obo the all seeing. wrote: The "media" did not edit that call. One company did, and the unedited version was heard also. I am not saying editing the call was right, but it did nobody any favors. Some people think it helped Zimmerman.
Yeah that company is a part of the media, but with it written like that it makes it sound like all of the companies were in on it.
The younger photo of Martin was also a bad call, but that does not change the fact that the cops bungled the case.
DD such comments as, "You believe she's lying. Apparently for no other reason than that she contradicts your preferred narrative. ", are made because it seems you are clearly trying to support one side as opposed to trying to find out what really happened. I am not saying don't have an opinion.
I think Zimmerman is guilty of murder, not premeditated, but still guilty. I am also open to the possibility that Zimmerman might just be a victim of police incompetence, and it would not be fair to make him a scapegoat because the police botched an investigation.
Now some will try to say the police could not arrest him legally, but in that case Zimmerman is then being tried(in the public eye) for a badly thought out law.
The unedited version was heard long after the edited version. And NBC, who edited the tape, has reporters whose job it is (or should be) to check facts. I don't think all the companies are deliberately in on it. Its not a conspiracy. Its laziness. They got their tape from NBC. They got their out of date pictures from some other reporting company. They made a judgement on the video instead of stressing how poor quality it was. They got the race of Zimmerman wrong. They aren't checking their facts. On the contrary, they played up the narrative of white racist killer shoots kid who is clutching candy.
They got greedy and they got lazy and its not the first time they've done it.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Asphere wrote:
This is what it comes down to. Is Dee Dee lying or is Zimmerman lying. Both have reasons to lie and I think the evidence is fuzzy enough to warrant a full investigation. The very fact that Zimmerman's word was taken at face value until the media frenzy hit is odd.
I don't know what you mean by saying that Zimmerman's word was taken at face value before the media frenzy hit. He wasn't arrested, but that's standard legal procedure in Florida. He still has to face a grand jury next week. Remember, as you've been told repeatedly, there was no grand jury scheduled until well after the media frenzy hit. And after the FBI and DOJ announced their investigations.
You think the media frenzy is interfering and everything would have come out in due time. I think the media frenzy kept this from being swept under the rug.
Darkwing Duck wrote: That's why instead of filling this thread up with frothing-at-the-mouth comments like, "You believe she's lying. Apparently for no other reason than that she contradicts your preferred narrative. ", I'd much prefer that this thread be used to share what each other has read so that we can work together to try to figure out what is true. That was after you said "Personally, I think DeeDee is lying", without giving any reason why. And while showing you had little idea of the content of her affidavit or the timing of the calls, which suggested to me you hadn't looked at the them closely enough to judge them on the merits.
Darkwing:
Look at the map. Zimmerman was a fair bit of distance away from his car where the altercation took place, and it appears to be through an alley that he couldn't drive through. There's no need to suppose anyone doubling back because there are two routes to Treyvon's house/ the back exit of the community. Zimmer cut Treyvon off at the pass.
thejeff wrote:
Remember, as you've been told repeatedly, there was no grand jury scheduled until well after the media frenzy hit. And after the FBI and DOJ announced their investigations.
You think the media frenzy is interfering and everything would have come out in due time. I think the media frenzy kept this from being swept under the rug.
What I've not seen is any evidence that the grand jury required media hysteria. Show me evidence that the time required to get the grand jury scheduled was longer than usual.
Darkwing Duck wrote: That's why instead of filling this thread up with frothing-at-the-mouth comments like, "You believe she's lying. Apparently for no other reason than that she contradicts your preferred narrative. ", I'd much prefer that this thread be used to share what each other has read so that we can work together to try to figure out what is true. That was after you said "Personally, I think DeeDee is lying", without giving any reason why. And while showing you had little idea of the content of her affidavit or the timing of the calls, which suggested to me you hadn't looked at the them closely enough to judge them on the merits.
I'm allowed to have opinions regarding DeeDee. You're allowed to have opinions about Zimmerman. I believe that we should acknowledge our opinions even while continuing to work towards the truth. Hiding opinions while working towards the truth is a bad thing.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Darkwing:
Look at the map. Zimmerman was a fair bit of distance away from his car where the altercation took place, and it appears to be through an alley that he couldn't drive through. There's no need to suppose anyone doubling back because there are two routes to Treyvon's house/ the back exit of the community. Zimmer cut Treyvon off at the pass.
Which map? I've seen two.
I suspect a lot of the media slant is because for several weeks before it actually hit the mainstream, the Martin family and their supporters had been trying to drum up support to get the police to make an arrest, or continue the investigation or something. Their efforts went viral on the internet, which pushed the mainstream media into covering it.
Therefore, when the first stories came out, the Martins were ready to get their story out. Hand over sympathetic photos, etc. Zimmerman wasn't prepared.
In other words, the media is lazy. Or more correctly, investigative staff has been slashed to the bone in cost-cutting measures, so most of them aren't used to doing more than paraphrasing press releases. The Martins had press releases ready. Zimmerman didn't.
Kirth Gersen wrote: pres man wrote: Again, there is no evidence from the video that his nose is broken, this is not the same as there is evidence it is not broken. This is not a good argument, pres man. If you claim to be a 4-armed superman ninja, it's up to you to prove it, not up to me to prove you're not. If Zimmerman's claim is that his nose was broken during a fight with Martin, it's up to Zimmerman to provide some iota of evidence that his claim is true. It's not up to the rest of the world to prove it isn't true. While I agree with you on substance, that if someone wants to claim something happened, they have to prove it. I still disagree that some claiming the video PROVES that he didn't have a broken nose. No, it doesn't PROVE anything about his nose at all, broken or otherwise. Now if someone wants to say, "I don't believe it was broken and this video hasn't given me any evidence to believe otherwise. Until I see some evidence that actually proves it was broken, I am not going to give them the benefit of the doubt." Then that makes sense, but to claim the video PROVES he doesn't have a broken nose is silly.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Asphere wrote:
This is what it comes down to. Is Dee Dee lying or is Zimmerman lying. Both have reasons to lie and I think the evidence is fuzzy enough to warrant a full investigation. The very fact that Zimmerman's word was taken at face value until the media frenzy hit is odd.
I don't know what you mean by saying that Zimmerman's word was taken at face value before the media frenzy hit. He wasn't arrested, but that's standard legal procedure in Florida. He still has to face a grand jury next week.
He wasn't going to face a grand jury. Even though the lead homicide investigator wanted to charge him with homicide, the state attorney's office said there was insufficient evidence for a conviction. At that point it was a done deal. The media frenzy, as ridiculous as it was (and still is), put pressure for a full investigation. A full month after the incident, the FBI and the Dept. of Justice launched their own investigation and shortly after (the same day in fact) it was announced that a grand jury would convene on April 10. It was the media pressure that brought the case to the attention of the FBI and the Dept. of Justice which pressured the state attorney's office.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
And when the media frenzy did hit, they made a concerted effort to lie to make him look as bad as possible (everything from editing the 911 call to using a childhood photo of Martin).
I agree with you here. That is what happens when news is profit motivated. They are going to pick the narrative that yields the most drama because they know that the American public eats it up. I get most of my news from non-profit media outlets for this very reason. The sad part is that Zimmerman most likely won't get a fair shake because he has already been tried in the media. As much as I think he is guilty of manslaughter, every person deserves a fair trial.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
That's why instead of filling this thread up with frothing-at-the-mouth comments like, "You believe she's lying. Apparently for no other reason than that she contradicts your preferred narrative. ", I'd much prefer that this thread be used to share what each other has read so that we can work together to try to figure out what is true.
But you do believe she is lying, but you believe Zimmerman isn't. This is what irks me. Why would she be more likely to lie over Zimmerman? Also, some many things could have played out after Zimmerman hung up with the 911 dispatcher that we cannot say what truly happened. There is a body of evidence that seems to cast doubt on Zimmerman's self defense claim. In other words, if Zimmerman did run back into Trayvon, and grab hold of him to keep him from running, and Travyon, to borrow a phrase, "stood his ground" and defended himself against Zimmerman, Zimmerman can no longer claim self defense. It is very possible that Zimmerman finished a fist fight that he started with his gun. If it did go down this way it could just as easily look the SAME as if it went down Zimmerman's way. So there is doubt, and there needed to be an investigation. My whole argument is that because it isn't a clear cut case (like a home break in), a full and detailed investigation was needed. Now that there is going to be, I feel better. But as far as I know there wasn't going to be until the media picked it up.
Freehold DM wrote: Calm down, aretas. Being snarky doesn't help your argument. And I would be interested in a calm and measured response to thejeffs timeline. Thanks Freehold, I appreciate your candre.
Darkwing Duck wrote: Here's another link. This one where the reporter who originally 'broke' the news of DeeDee's alleged call claims to have a recording of that call.
https://twitter.com/#!/mattgutmanABC/status/185073162889859072
That's caused a lot of outrage all over the web. If you look at his twitter feed, he clarifies it later on. Apparently he misread the question "did you actually hear the recording of the phone call b/w Martin and his girlfriend?" as being about the recording of the affidavit.
Several times later he expresses puzzlement that people think he has the recording of the call:
Quote: @mattgutmanABC are you going to publish a transcript (or brief) of the recording b/w Trayvon and his GF? How did they get the recording?
@DCWebGuy we called her on the phone.
Quote: @mattgutmanABC Your 3/20 story implied there exists a recording of Trayvon/gf call. Today you tweeted that you have this recording. Why?
@BCM_USA please read carefully. phone logs not the same as recordings
Quote: @mattgutmanABC Where's the recording between of the convo between Martin and his GF?
@dnrmnr why do people think there is a "recording" between Martin and his GF when @ABC reported only that we have the "call logs." curious?
Then finally Quote: @mattgutmanABC "I am the only person who has that recording".
@dnrmnr now i understand: recording of the original conversation with the GF, not the recording of her conversation with him that night.
Not the brightest bulb, perhaps, but a simple misstatement, clarified a couple days later. No secret recordings. No grand conspiracy.
Stuffy Grammarian wrote: Aretas wrote: I'm sure your a smart guy and can briliantly figure it out for yourself. "Your" =/= "you're." DOH!
Thanks.
Darkwing Duck wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Darkwing:
Look at the map. Zimmerman was a fair bit of distance away from his car where the altercation took place, and it appears to be through an alley that he couldn't drive through. There's no need to suppose anyone doubling back because there are two routes to Treyvon's house/ the back exit of the community. Zimmer cut Treyvon off at the pass.
Which map? I've seen two. Map
People are assuming that the conflict is taking place along an arbitrarily strait line and its not. Martin moves away from zimmerman and heads down the upper walkway, Zimmerman starts running and comes in through the lower walkway to cut him off. It fits everything.
Once Zimmerman cuts martin off Zimmerman has no defense. Stand your ground or not, Martin has tried top avoid the situation and the situation has come to him. Martin allowed to defend himself: in short martin is legally entitled under Florida, as well as most states laws, to break Zimmermans nose. Zimmerman cannot claim self defense because he is the aggressor. Even Martin ducking behind a bush or in a doorway and popping out at Zimmerman would be allowed.
I know in your view that you cannot use violence without absolute certainty (and that in your view absolute certainty is impossible, thus you can't act) but that is not the standard that any law in the US works with. It has to be reasonable: someone following you for 5 blocks and running after you is more than enough to reasonably construe that they mean to harm you.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Darkwing Duck wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Darkwing:
Look at the map. Zimmerman was a fair bit of distance away from his car where the altercation took place, and it appears to be through an alley that he couldn't drive through. There's no need to suppose anyone doubling back because there are two routes to Treyvon's house/ the back exit of the community. Zimmer cut Treyvon off at the pass.
Which map? I've seen two. Map
People are assuming that the conflict is taking place along an arbitrarily strait line and its not. Martin moves away from zimmerman and heads down the upper walkway, Zimmerman starts running and comes in through the lower walkway to cut him off. It fits everything.
Once Zimmerman cuts martin off Zimmerman has no defense. Stand your ground or not, Martin has tried top avoid the situation and the situation has come to him. Martin allowed to defend himself: in short martin is legally entitled under Florida, as well as most states laws, to break Zimmermans nose. Zimmerman cannot claim self defense because he is the aggressor. Even Martin ducking behind a bush or in a doorway and popping out at Zimmerman would be allowed.
I know in your view that you cannot use violence without absolute certainty (and that in your view absolute certainty is impossible, thus you can't act) but that is not the standard that any law in the US works with. It has to be reasonable: someone following you for 5 blocks and running after you is more than enough to reasonably construe that they mean to harm you.
This map shows how it makes sense in my head. Since Zimmerman lost sight of Martin it doesn't make sense to me that he broke off his pursuit but still ended up in an altercation with Martin in the alley way. If he broke off his pursuit in the alley way, how did he lose sight of him if Martin was in the alley way? I think Martin rounded the corner, Zimmerman lost sight of him, told the dispatcher he was breaking pursuit, hung up, and continued via the path shown in that map, and headed Martin off. The the GF heard over the phone "why are you following me?" and Zimmerman say "why are you here" and then one of them started the altercation. It doesn't make sense that Martin would have reacted unless Zimmerman grabbed him, perhaps, fighting him off and screaming for help. We know from the 911 call that Zimmerman was angry that "they always get away" and that he wanted the police to get this person who he had already pegged as suspicious - seems like he would have tried to sit on Martin until the police arrived. He bit off more than he could chew, Martin got the best of him, he freaked and shot Martin. He has a history of reacting violently so it isn't a stretch.
pres man wrote: I still disagree that some claiming the video PROVES that he didn't have a broken nose. No, it doesn't PROVE anything about his nose at all, broken or otherwise. I agree that's an important distinction to make. Good call -- although, from the standpoint of using a broken nose as an alibi, Zimmerman's gonna have to do a hell of a lot better than, "Well, it must have magically healed before the paramedics arrived!"
|
